Crl.Petn./240/2025 of Kemi Lai and 3 Ors Vs The State of AP on 11 February 2026

ORDER

12.02.2026 Heard Mr. B. Padung, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. This joint application has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for quashing and setting aside G.R. Case No. 01/2022 arising out of Papu Hill P.S. Case No. 01/2022, registered under Sections 279/338 of the IPC, pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia.

3. Petitioner No. 1 is the informant; petitioner No. 2 is the victim and son of petitioner No. 1; petitioner No. 3 is another victim; and petitioner No. 4 is the alleged accused in the aforesaid G.R. Case No. 01/2022 arising out of Papu Hill P.S. Case No. 01/2022.

4. The brief fact of the case is that; the petitioner No. 1 lodged the aforesaid First Information Report (FIR) on 01.01.2022 stating that on 31.12.2021, at about 10:00 P.M., near Royal International School, Papu Nalah, an unknown person drove his Scorpio vehicle from the wrong side and hit his son (petitioner No. 2), and thereafter fled from the spot. The victim sustained grievous injuries and was referred to Guwahati, where he was admitted to the ICU in critical condition. Subsequently, it came to light that the said Scorpio vehicle was being driven by the present petitioner No. 4. Accordingly, upon receipt of the FIR, Papu Hill P.S. Case No. 01/2022 under Sections 279/338 IPC was registered, and investigated into. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet No. 15/2022 dated 30.03.2022 was submitted against the accused/petitioner before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Capital Complex, Yupia. The court took cognizance of the case vide order dated 13.09.2022 and endorsed the case to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yupia, for trial and disposal. Till date, charge has not been framed against the accused/Petitioner No. 4.

5. Mr. Padung, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the case is of the year 2022 and that during the pendency of the trial, the matter has been amicably resolved between the parties and executed a mutual settlement deed dated 29.10.2025. He further submitted that petitioner No. 1 (informant) and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 (victims) have expressed that they are not willing to proceed with the matter any further, as the incident arose due to an accident, and the accused/petitioner No. 4 has borne all the medical expenses of the victims and also compensated. He also submitted that petitioner Nos. 1, 2, and 4 are distant relatives. Further, petitioner Nos. 1, 2, and 3 have no grievance against petitioner No. 4 and do not wish to pursue the matter any further.

6. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the matter has been amicably settled and there is no likelihood of conviction, the proceedings against petitioner No. 4 may be quashed by invoking the power under Section 528 of the BNSS.

7. Ms. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, fairly submitted that in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, considering that the incident allegedly occurred due to vehicular accident and that petitioner Nos. 1, 2, and 3 have no further grievances and do not wish to pursue the matter, she has no objection if the prayer of the petitioners is allowed.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the record.

9. The present case arose out of road accident caused unintentionally by petitioner No. 4 to petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. However, during the pendency of trial the parties have amicably settled the matter. The accused petitioner have adequately compensated the victim, and petitioner No. 1 (informant) and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 (victims) now have no grievance against the accused/petitioner No. 4 and do not wish to pursue the case. The dispute appears to be personal in nature and does not affect society at large. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, there appears to be only a remote possibility of conviction. In view of the above, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the accused would be a futile exercise and would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Laxmi Narayan and Ors. reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 held that the High Court in exercise of power under 482 of the Code can quashed the criminal proceeding even for non-compoundable offences which are private in nature and do not have serious impact on society on the ground that there is settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender.

11. In light of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in[(2012) 10 SCC 303], Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab reported in[(2014) 6 SCC 466], as well as the State of

Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (supra), where the Apex Court has permitted quashing of proceedings even in non-compoundable offence in cases involved in private disputes which do not affect the society at large, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case, where inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C/Section 528 of BNSS, should be exercised to secure the ends of justice.

12. Accordingly, the proceedings in G.R. Case No. 01/2022, arising out of Papu Hill P.S. Case No. 01/2022, and the charge-sheet, vide C.S. No.15/2022 dated 30.03.2022, registered under Sections 279/338 of the IPC, pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Capital Complex, Yupia, against the accused, Shri Nima Phassang (petitioner No. 4), are hereby quashed in the interest of justice.

13. With the above, this petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant